In a significant policy move, the Trump administration has released an extensive list targeting dozens of sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States, including over three dozen cities in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. This action follows the signing of Executive Order 14287, titled Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens, which directs federal agencies to publicly identify localities that, in the administration’s view, do not comply with federal immigration enforcement protocols.
The executive order mandates that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) maintain and regularly update a list of jurisdictions deemed non-compliant with federal immigration law. DHS alleges that these jurisdictions obstruct the enforcement of immigration laws, provide legal protections for individuals who have entered the country illegally, and fail to share critical information with federal agencies. According to the DHS release, these sanctuary jurisdictions “endanger American communities” and “protect dangerous criminal aliens.”
The Trump administration’s stance is that cities and states that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement may lose access to certain federal funds. The administration has drawn attention to this funding threat repeatedly, using it as a pressure point to push for policy changes. This echoes past instances where federal funds were leveraged as a tool to influence local decisions, including the debate over congestion pricing in New York.
Among the most notable cities on the list is New York City, which has long maintained policies limiting cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Other New York localities include Albany, Beacon, East Hampton, Hudson, Ithaca, Kingston, New Paltz, Newburgh, Poughkeepsie, Rochester, and Syracuse. In addition to the named cities, 15 counties across New York are listed for their sanctuary status, including Albany, Dutchess, Monroe, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Saratoga, Suffolk, Sullivan, Tompkins, Ulster, Warren, Wayne, Westchester, and Yates.
In New Jersey, the list names 18 cities and three counties: Burlington, Cumberland, and Warren. Prominent urban centers such as Newark, Jersey City, and Paterson are included. The Justice Department has already taken legal action against several of these cities and their mayors, filing lawsuits over their policies. Additional named cities in New Jersey include Asbury Park, Bloomfield, Camden, East Orange, Hoboken, Leonia, Linden, Maplewood, Montclair Township, North Bergen, Plainfield, Prospect Park, South Orange, Trenton, and Union City.
Connecticut is also identified, with six cities on the list: East Haven, Hamden, Hartford, New Haven, New London, and Windham. Governor Ned Lamont of Connecticut responded firmly to the federal designation, stating that the state’s Trust Act, which limits cooperation with ICE, aligns with constitutional principles and public safety priorities. Lamont emphasized that Connecticut’s policies are not about resisting federal law but about ensuring that communities are safe and residents are willing to cooperate with local law enforcement without fear of immigration consequences.
Mayor Eric Adams of New York City has addressed the controversy by expressing a commitment to protecting immigrants’ access to city services, such as education and emergency assistance. At the same time, Adams has allowed ICE to establish a presence at Rikers Island, a move viewed by some as a compromise. While Adams has stated that he is working to secure all federal funding available to the city, immigration advocacy groups have criticized him for what they see as an erosion of sanctuary protections.
Murad Awawdeh, president and CEO of the New York Immigration Coalition, called on the mayor to halt actions that circumvent local sanctuary laws. Awawdeh urged city leadership to invest more in legal services for immigrants and to uphold stronger protections that reflect the city’s stated values.
On the federal level, Representative Dan Goldman, who represents parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn, highlighted the severity of the administration’s stance, stating that denying funding based on immigration policy disagreements represents an aggressive overreach. Goldman called the threat to withhold federal funding a “big hammer” and warned that it could have serious consequences for public programs and infrastructure.
This latest clash between the federal government and local jurisdictions is part of a broader national debate over immigration enforcement and states’ rights. While the Trump administration continues to advocate for strict immigration measures and increased cooperation from localities, legal precedents have consistently upheld the autonomy of states and municipalities in shaping their own enforcement priorities.
Federal courts have previously ruled that the government cannot use financial leverage to compel local authorities to enforce immigration laws. These decisions have emphasized the principle of federalism, recognizing the rights of states and cities to determine how their law enforcement agencies engage with federal immigration authorities.
Despite these legal constraints, the Trump administration appears determined to challenge sanctuary policies through public pressure, litigation, and regulatory means. The DHS has stated that the sanctuary jurisdiction list is subject to updates and could change as local policies evolve. Jurisdictions that revise their laws to align with federal expectations may be removed from the list, while others may be added in the future.
The publication of this list and the surrounding controversy mark another chapter in the ongoing tension between federal immigration enforcement and local governance. As these debates continue, the implications for federal funding, public safety, and community trust remain central to the discourse. The outcome of legal challenges and policy shifts will shape the future of sanctuary jurisdictions and their role within the broader framework of U.S. immigration policy.